whydowebother Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Thought you'd like to see her in black and white Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I guess I'm in a minority of one but for me the objection is that club goodwill is being sold to finance the bid and that revenue should be going to the club is going elsewhere. I understand the greater good argument that is being put forward but it's not for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSS Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Thought you'd like to see her in black and white ImageUploadedByBlack & White Army1460890992.008647.jpg Any pics of her without the Black & White? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) I guess I'm in a minority of one but for me the objection is that club goodwill is being sold to finance the bid and that revenue should be going to the club is going elsewhere. I understand the greater good argument that is being put forward but it's not for me. "If were to sell all 20 packages it would give us £50,000 in the bank to protect against any issues with cashflow with the club, and ensure the trust had a safety net against any problems with its own fundraising" I read this as it's going to be money kept in the bank and not going towards the purchase of shares. The revenue would be going to the club and not elsewhere. I've not been to any meetings or even the SMISA AGM, this is just what I'm taking from the information provided. Edited April 17, 2016 by davidg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSS Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I guess I'm in a minority of one but for me the objection is that club goodwill is being sold to finance the bid and that revenue should be going to the club is going elsewhere. I understand the greater good argument that is being put forward but it's not for me. Surprised you're not going for it Bud.....you have more dough than the rest of us put together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 "If were to sell all 20 packages it would give us £50,000 in the bank to protect against any issues with cashflow with the club, and ensure the trust had a safety net against any problems with its own fundraising" I read this as it's going to be money kept in the bank and not going towards the purchase of shares. The revenue would be going to the club and not elsewhere. I've not been to any meetings or even the SMISA AGM, this is just what I'm taking from the information provided. That's the ambiguity that bothers me - if the club needs a £50k emergency fund let them sell the packages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I guess I'm in a minority of one but for me the objection is that club goodwill is being sold to finance the bid and that revenue should be going to the club is going elsewhere. I understand the greater good argument that is being put forward but it's not for me. I wouldn't say it is goodwill being sold. It is a business arrangement. It shouldn't be a case of sealing the deal at any cost, of course, but I'm not clear what the cost is here in terms of any loss of goodwill. When folk pay up front for a ST, they get a discount on entry to games, and their own seat. I'm absolutely cool with that. It is as it should be. I don't hear any discussion about loss of goodwill. Granted, it's not a perfect parallel, but hopefully you can see the point I'm trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Surprised you're not going for it Bud.....you have more dough than the rest of us put together. Stop taking a rise out of the guy! Edited April 17, 2016 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I wouldn't say it is goodwill being sold. It is a business arrangement. It shouldn't be a case of sealing the deal at any cost, of course, but I'm not clear what the cost is here in terms of any loss of goodwill. When folk pay up front for a ST, they get a discount on entry to games, and their own seat. I'm absolutely cool with that. It is as it should be. I don't hear any discussion about loss of goodwill. Granted, it's not a perfect parallel, but hopefully you can see the point I'm trying to make. Fair doo's - I don't want to StuDick the thread so I'll refrain from posting and wish the rest of y'all & the bid the best of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 That's the ambiguity that bothers me - if the club needs a £50k emergency fund let them sell the packages. I would have thought it's better to hold an emergency fund away from the club, that way SMiSA can be sure it's only ever a temporary loan and not used to bolster the budget. Weren't Motherwell supporters conned persuaded to raise money for an emergency fund that was getting used to balance their budget ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Stop taking a rise out of the guy! HSS is on a roll.... Edited April 17, 2016 by davidg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Fair doo's - I don't want to StuDick the thread so I'll refrain from posting and wish the rest of y'all & the bid the best of luck. Not at all, mate. We need a debate on this. Too much at stake to dispense with one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSS Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Not at all, mate. We need a debate on this. Too much at stake to dispense with one. Correct.....we need to discuss peoples fears.This shouldn't just be a pro takeover thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Thought the quality of work, foundation and organisation that had gone into creating this opportunity was spot on yesterday. Unlike previous bids that chopped, changed but still left you none the wiser this proposal ticks all the boxes. It guarantees: Fan Ownership No one individual can hold charges against the club It does not saddle the members or club with an unservicable debt It is affordable for most to get involved One member, one vote No subservient fans board By design it aims to get as many saints fans as possible involved in the democratic set up It is committed to building, enhancing and working to give back to the community And it is within our grasp! Was openly concerned about having an MP as chair of Smisa and perhaps walking on to the board, but George to his credit insisted that being on the board would/could be counter productive and that he will not be going up for the board, and will keep that distance as Smisa chair. Gordon has obviously done a lot of research and come up with, in my opinion an excellent opportunity to take our club forward again. The work put in by all the Smisa team, including George is to be applauded. They have held back releasing piecemeal headline grabbing info until they were absolutely sure and ready to launch the bid. Unlike the last series of fiascos all the financial info is up front and centre. Most of the questions you may have are already explained,,or the info is there to enable you to form an opinion. The club will be sold, the current board who I have to applaud, in this instance have agreed a deal in principal with Smisa and Gordon that wouldnt be available to any other. However if we dont grab this opportunity to push the club froward again it will be sold to whoever pays the Bod what they want! They have had enough, and lets face it with the honesty and opinion shared yesterday are making decisions purely on a day to day basis that keeps the club running (the sevco stand debacle). Gordon won't and can't make such decisions without it going to the membership to canvass ideas, options and opinion. If we take this great opportunity the current board can move on with their heads held high, having preserved the good work they have done over the years by handing the batton on to us to kick on. I am more than happy to retract all the criticism I have had of the Bod over recent times, Given their part in creating this deal and golden opportunity to not just secure, but take forward our club's future and build it for the support and the community. #BUYTHEBUDS Time to put up, and push on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I would have thought it's better to hold an emergency fund away from the club, that way SMiSA can be sure it's only ever a temporary loan and not used to bolster the budget. Weren't Motherwell supporters conned persuaded to raise money for an emergency fund that was getting used to balance their budget ? My understanding is that this is exactly what Smisa have set up. £10 of each membership subs goes to financing the bid, and the other £2 goes into the Smisa trust where the club (Gordon) can't access it, and Smisa can decide how, when, where and for what purpose it should be best used. It would be up to the membership to decide if it lent funds to the club to cover any cash shortfall. With the emphasis on LEND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted April 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I'm quite excited about the prospect of change in the boardroom. I think Gordon would be a breath of fresh air to the place and crucially he's someone we know and someone we know has the best interests of the club at heart. If the deal goes through I'd hope that we could actually pay back all the money in less than 10 years as I'd hope we could get more than 1,000 fans on board. If we had 1500 paying £12 a month and they kept doing it even after all the money was paid back we'd have £18K a month to invest in our football club. That could make a massive difference to all sorts of operations within the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ McG Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I'm quite excited about the prospect of change in the boardroom. I think Gordon would be a breath of fresh air to the place and crucially he's someone we know and someone we know has the best interests of the club at heart. If the deal goes through I'd hope that we could actually pay back all the money in less than 10 years as I'd hope we could get more than 1,000 fans on board. If we had 1500 paying £12 a month and they kept doing it even after all the money was paid back we'd have £18K a month to invest in our football club. That could make a massive difference to all sorts of operations within the club. That's me signed up, hope we can push this through and make it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 130 latest count. More than decent considering the campaign is only just up and running and any publicity this weekend was solely directed towards a certain cup semi final at Hampden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhiteman Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 http://www.smisa.net/news-archive/191-130-sign-ups-to-buythebuds-in-just-48-hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Monkey Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 I'm going to sign up. Money is tight for me this year, but an extra £7, on top of my current SMISA fiver, is something I can do. There's no question there's a malaise around our lovely club at the moment. This seems like a well-thought-out initiative, and is being run by St Mirren people. Give me this over some fly-by-night Argentinian/English consortium any day of the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 Is it better to sign up for the £25 per month thing or to take out two £12 ones instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) I'm going to sign up. Money is tight for me this year, but an extra £7, on top of my current SMISA fiver, is something I can do. There's no question there's a malaise around our lovely club at the moment. This seems like a well-thought-out initiative, and is being run by St Mirren people. Give me this over some fly-by-night Argentinian/English consortium any day of the week. question as the above comment has raised a bit of confusion for me. The shares and the money will be owned by SMISA and so all members of SMISA will vote on what happens with what it owns. I assumed therefore that all members of SMISA would need to upgrade to at least £12 per month, but looking at the above is this the case or are some current SMISA members not going to be paying at least £12 per month and yet remain SMISA members? and leading on from that of the £12 per month what proportion of that actually goes to make you a SMISA member...bearing in mind what it currently costs? Edited April 18, 2016 by rea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhiteman Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 question as the above comment has raised a bit of confusion for me. The shares and the money will be owned by SMISA and so all members of SMISA will vote on what happens with what it owns. I assumed therefore that all members of SMISA would need to upgrade to at least £12 per month, but looking at the above is this the case or are some current SMISA members not going to be paying at least £12 per month and yet remain SMISA members? and leading on from that of the £12 per month what proportion of that actually goes to make you a SMISA member...bearing in mind what it currently costs? all current smisa members are being asked to up to £12 the members decide what the £2's will be used for, bearing in mind it already contributes to panda club, academy etc effectively the £2 makes you a smisa member as this was the minimum set when the board stopped selling smisa unissued shares, those previously paying more then the £2 decided where the overage went to eg private share purchase etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 all current smisa members are being asked to up to £12 the members decide what the £2's will be used for, bearing in mind it already contributes to panda club, academy etc effectively the £2 makes you a smisa member as this was the minimum set when the board stopped selling smisa unissued shares, those previously paying more then the £2 decided where the overage went to eg private share purchase etc Splendid, so hopefully get well above 200 asap as there are at least that number SMISA members? you just have to watch what you are actually saying about what it costs to be a SMISA member is it £12 or is it £2, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 Just had the email to say my Gocardless has been amended, so that'll be me officially in and on board too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.